"Wanderer" article on
Fr Nicholas Gruner

For some Catholics, there are three things in
life that seem inevitable: death, taxes, and fund-raising letters from Fr.
Nicholas detailing the latest alleged ‘conspiracy’ that is attempting to
silence him. Thus Fr. Gruner’s latest missive, dated the feast of the Holy
Innocents, is no different from the usual fare.

Many Wanderer readers will recall that not
too many years ago, the Apostolic Signatura upheld Father Nicholas
Gruner’s suspension from his priestly faculties. The Signatura is the
Church’s highest court of appeal, short of the Holy Father himself. News
of this suspension was made public in an official press release which in
part stated: ‘The Congregation for the Clergy, upon the mandate from a
higher authority, wishes to state that Rev. Nicholas Gruner is under a
divinis suspension, which has been confirmed by a definitive sentence of
the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura’.

In response to this suspension from a
competent Church authority, Fr. Gruner offers us the following official
statement:

‘The law of God and cannon law itself state
clearly (see cannons 221, 1321, and 1323) that no priest in the catholic
Church can be suspended a divinis, or penalized with any other
ecclesiastical penalty, if that priest has not committed a crime or
transgression of Church law or precept. Since no such crime or
transgression has ever been committed by or attributed to Fr. Gruner, it
is absolutely clear and certain that he is not suspended from the
priesthood. Anyone of any rank whatsoever, who says he is suspended is
either ignorant of the facts, misled, or outright
malicious.’

Now Fr. Gruner claims that he has committed
no crime or transgression, despite the fact that the Church says
differently. Fr. Gruner also claims that anyone who appears to contradict
him is either ignorant of the facts, misled or outright malicious. Given
the fact that Fr. Gruner’s suspension was upheld by a sentence of the
Apostolic Signatura, this is simply amazing. Since all sentences rendered
by a competent Church tribunal contain a section clearly laying out the
facts, Fr. Gruner should perhaps either read or re-read the facts section
of the Signatura’s sentence before putting forwards such
claims.

As for the cannons cited by Fr. Gruner,
cannon 1321 basically provides that no one can be punished unless he has
actually committed some offence with malice or culpability. To refresh our
memories, Fr. Gruner was ordered by his legitimate ecclesiastical superior
to return to the diocese of his incardination. Keep in mind that he made a
solemn promise or vow to serve this diocese when he was ordained. He was
also warned that failure to return to his diocese of incardination would
result in his suspension a divinis.

He did not undertake the action required of
him, and subsequently his competent ecclesiastical superior followed
through with the threatened suspension. Additionally, paragraph three of
this same cannon states: ‘Where there has been an external violation,
imputability is presumed, unless it appears otherwise.’ Some argue that
Fr. Gruner’s imputability appears otherwise; however, it obviously did not
appear to be such in the judgement of the apostolic Signatura. As
Catholics, we should charitably assume that the Signatura knew all the
facts when adjudicating Fr. Gruner’s case, and that these facts are aptly
summarized in the Signatura’s judicial sentence.

Additionally, Fr. Gruner mentions canon 1323.
This canon lists a number of exempting causes from canonical penalties. In
the experience of the present authors, one of the exempting causes that
Fr. Gruner’s supporters have cited in the past is one concerning ‘reason
of necessity or grave inconvenience’. Nevertheless, this canon also
specifies that neither applies if ‘the act is intrinsically evil or tends
to be harmful to souls’. Given that Christ instituted the Church as a
hierarchy, is not disobedience to the lawful command of one’s
ecclesiastical superior harmful to souls?

Or is Fr. Gruner somehow exempt from the vow
or promise of obedience he took at ordination? In essence, Fr. Gruner’s
disobedience to legitimate Church authorities seems rather jarring when
one considers the example of those who played a key role in the Fátima
apparitions. From Holy Scripture, we know that the Blessed Virgin said
‘fiat’ when she was approached by the Archangel Gabriel and was asked to
bear God the Son in her most blessed womb. As for Sister Lucia, the last
living seer to receive Our Lady’s message at Fátima, she has lived her
life as a holy example of faithful submission and obedience to legitimate
Church authority.

As an aside, perhaps the lidless eyes among
some of Fr. Gruner’s followers could explain how the obedience shown by
Sister Lucia toward her hierarchal superiors in any way differs from that
which these same folk denigrate as ‘neo-catholic’?

Thirdly, Fr. Gruner refers to canon 221. In
the past, some of his defenders have referred to paragraph three of this
canon, which states: ‘Christ’s faithful have the right that no canonical
penalties be inflicted on them except in accordance with the law.’ Yet
Pope John Paul II has trusted the Apostolic Signatura, and not Fr. Gruner
and his supporters, with the competency to adjudicate this matter on
behalf of the Church. Therefore, the penalty inflicted on Fr. Gruner has
been upheld in complete accordance with both the letter and the spirit of
canon 221.

Having addressed these canonical issues, let
us now take a moment and consider how a faithful son of the Church might
act when a superior imposes a penalty. While few rejoice in having a
censure imposed upon them, how one deals with the censure should be
consistent with our Catholic tradition of obedience.

Unfortunately, Fr. Gruner’s method of dealing
with his censure seems to have more in common with the ways of Hans Küng,
Charles Curran, and Leonardo Boff. In each of these cases, any action
taken by the Holy See was followed by public wrangling and/or disputing in
a manner that often appeared to accuse the Holy See of acting in bad
faith. How then does a catholic informed by the tradition act? Here is one
example:

St. Gerard lived between 1727 and 1755. He
entered the Redemptorist community in 1748 as a lay brother and gave his
profession four years later to St. Alphonsus Ligouri - the founder of the
community. He became known for great holiness and charity and he also
demonstrated the gift of prophecy. He was sought after as a spiritual
adviser, although he was not a priest. However, when a woman he had helped
to enter a convent failed in her profession, she lashed out at St. Gerard
and falsely accused him of fornication and lechery.

Gerard made no answer to the charges, and was
all but expelled from the community as a result. The woman later recanted
upon her deathbed.

Upon learning of this, St. Alphonsus asked
St. Gerard why he had remained silent. St. Gerard replied that he believed
that this was what was required of him in the face of unjust accusations.
He cited for his model Our Lord who was silent upon Pilate’s inquiry as to
the charges against Him. He also cited the rule of the Redemptorists,
which he believed stated that one was not to defend oneself from the
charges of their superior.

He died shortly after being cleared of all
charges.

Fr. Gruner does not appear to be cut from the
same cloth as St. Gerard. Nor does he seem to have been cut from the same
cloth as St. Lucia of Fátima, who, as we previously mentioned, has lived
her life as a holy example of faithful submission and obedience to
legitimate Church authority.

So, yes, Virginia, the Catholic Church has
suspended Fr. Nicholas from his priestly faculties. And in following the
Fátima message one must choose between Fr. Gruner’s example of
disobedience to legitimate ecclesiastical authority, or Sr. Lucia’s heroic
example of obedience to the Church during a difficult time in Church
history.

Personally, Sr. Lucia’s example seems much
more convincing and in keeping with the authentic Fátima message, as she
was one of the three children chosen by the Blessed Mother of Christ to
receive this important private revelation.